%. 






"^^^d^" :^ 



























*.>* .'^SS!^-. \/ •^^^'- *' 











^4^ *••■'• A° <Ji^ *• 



V 











47 ^ 















' /\l^-' **''** ••'^•' /\ --Mts*.- *' 

'6^ 




«• t«»„ 




'^'^vV -j^^m>^^ -^^0*^ 



'oK 







"^O^ 



^-'^ . 










*^^*' 














^''^^-.. -J 





t. -*^Tf^\<v 






THE 



ANTI-SLAVERY REFORM, 



ITS PRINCIPLE AND METHOD. 




BY WILLIAM I. BOWDITCH. 



BOSTON: 

ROBERT F. WALLCUT, 21, CORNHILL. 

1850. 






NOTE. 

The substance of the following remarks was spoken by me at West Chester, 
Penn. on the thirteenth of last month. Having been requested to report 
my remarks, I have endeavored to do so as accurately as possible. Whilst 
I have extenuated nothing that I said, I have ventured to add two or three 
sentences and a few notes. 

W. I. B. 

Nov. 18j0. 










^-o 




BOSTON: 
PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON, 

No. 21, School-Street. 



THE ANTI-SLAVERY REFORM. 



When Milton was engaged in writing his " Second Defence 
of the People of England," he had wholly lost the sight of 
one eye, and the sight of the remaining eye was partially 
affected. He was advised by his physician, that, if he per- 
severed and completed his task, he would become totally 
and hopelessly blind. And what did that old hero in the 
cause of civil and religious liberty do ? Did he hesitate or 
falter at the prospect ? No : he steered right onward, nor 
bated jot of heart or hope, and finished the work which Avas 
set before him, — that noble task with which all Europe 
rang from side to side. And, Avhen the evil days of the 
Restoration found him eyeless, among enemies, but triumph- 
ant in soul, what supported him in his terrible affliction ? 
Let his own words, taken from his magnificent sonnet to 
Cyriack Skinner, answer : — 

What supports mc, dost thou ask ? — 
The conscience, friend, to have lost them overplied 
In liberty's defence. 

Blind, among enemies, Milton enjoyed that unspeakable 
consolation, — the reflection, that, for the cause of liberty, 
he had been willing to endure a trial 

worse than chains, 
Dungeon, or beggary, or decrepit age. 



From ibis experience of Milton we may draw lessons 
which cannot fail to strengthen our minds for the great con- 
flict which is before us. 

Three times, since the adoption of the national Constitution, 
have the friends of freedom and the friends of slavery come 
in conflict. In 1820, the question came up for decision by 
this nation, Shall the evil of slavery be extended across the 
Mississippi, or shall the curse be there arrested ? The strug- 
gle was an earnest, a glorious one ; but the friends of freedom 
were overcome, and slavery was suffered to extend across 
that river. In 1843-4 it was proposed to annex a foreign 
Slave State to this Union, partly, if not mainly, for the pur- 
pose, openly avowed by our government in its official papers,* 
of protecting the institution of slavery, and of preventing the 
establishment of a free nation on our south-western frontier ; 
and again a desperate struggle ensued, and again the friends 
of freedom were overcome. And now, after the lapse of 
fifteen years of anti-slavery agitation. Congress, after one 
of the stormiest sessions on record, has just passed a series of 
bills for the purpose of for ever " settling," they say, the 
questions growing out of the existence of slavery ; and among 
these bills is one, — the Fugitive Slave Bill, — the infinite 
atrocity of which I will not undertake to portray, and which, 
in truth, none, but one of that class upon whom it is designed 
to operate, can adequately describe. 

In these, our evil days, apparently defeated at all points, 
what supports us? The conscience, friends, that our cause 
is just, and that success is as certain as that the eternal God is 
just. We meet here to-day, in anti-slavery convention, with 
as unshaken a conviction that our principle is true, with as 
unshaken a conviction that our method of spreading that 
principle is the only right method, and with as resolute a 
determination to persevere, until success shall crown our 
efforts, as in the day of our brightest hope and expectations. 

What is the principle which underlies the anti-slavery 
movement ? It is that slaveholding is always wrong ; not in 

* See the evidence collected in " The War with Mexico reviewed," by 
Abicl A, Livcrmore, chap. iii. 



this case or that case only, but in all cases ; not under this 
state of circumstances or that state of circumstances only, 
but under all circumstances. And why have we this un- 
shaken conviction that slaveholding is always wrong ? Have 
not hundreds of reverend fathers in God constantly assured 
us that " slavery as it exists" is right? Does not the Rev. 
Theodore Clapp, the Unitarian clergyman of New Orleans, 
declare to us that God, the compassionate and merciful 
God, " deals in slaves " ? * Does not the Rev. Moses Stuart, 
the Orthodox Christian of Andover, speak of " the owner- 
ship of slaves, which Heaven has given express leave to pur- 
chase " ? (" Conscience and the Constitution," p. 35.) Does 
not the Right Rev. William Meade, Bishop of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church for the diocese of Virginia, call upon the 
slaves in his diocese to fall on their knees, and devoutly thank 
God that he has made them slaves, in order the better to help 
them towards heaven ? f 

Have not the politicians of the country constantly declared 
to us, that that is property which the law makes properly ? 

Have not the sober, practical men of the nation been con- 
tinually warning us, that immediate emancipation would 
work greater wrong than keeping the blacks in slavery? 
that the evil consequences of immediate emancipation would 
be vastly greater than those of continued slavery ? As if 
finite man, who can see with distinctness scarcely the first 
in the infinite chain of consequences that flow from the 
meanest act of his daily life, was to be called upon to decide 
a question of right and wrong by balancing consequences ! 
These same sober, practical men not only disregard the 
demonstration of the safety of immediate emancipation, which 
has been afforded us by some of the West India Islands, but 



* His M-orcls are : " Here we see God dealing in slaves, giving them to 
his own favorite child (Abraham), a man of superlative worth, and as a 
reward for his eminent goodness." 

t His words are foiind in one of his sermons to the slaves. God, he 
says, " hath by his providence made you servants, because, no doubt, ho 
knew that condition Avould be best for you in this world, and help you the 
better towards heaven, if you would but do your duty in it." 



i*.-'>> 

^.>i 



they are like the fool in the old story who resolved not to go 
into the water until he had learned to swim. As no man 
can learn to live in the water but by actual experience, so no 
slave can learn to live in freedom without actual experience: 
you cannot fit a slave for freedom. If you wait for emanci- 
pation until you can make the slaves wise and good as slaves, 
you must wait for ever. 

Why, then, have we this unshaken conviction in the truth 
of our principle, if we are thus opposed by the priests, poli- 
ticians, and practical men of the nation ? 

What is the hisrhest test of moral truth ? Is it to be found 
in the common consent of men ? No : not even the omnipo- 
tent God can make right wrong. His laws are right, not 
because they are his, but because they are right. And can 
man, by merely agreeing- that an act shall bear a certain cha- 
racter, affect at all the moral character of that act ? No : 
though all the priests, politicians, and practical men of the 
' world should agree, they could not make wrong right. Not 
all the creeds, constitutions, laws, and customs of the uni- 
verse, can make wrong in the slightest degree right. 
f Is this test to be found in texts of Scripture ? No : the 
same text is construed differently by different men ; and who 
is authorized to settle the difference, and tell us surely what 
is the truth ? Different texts are quoted on the same subject, 
and no power exists capable of reconciling the conflict.* It is 

* To illustrate our position, -we might take any one of the texts hearing 
on any of the reforms of the clay. "NVe shall refer only to one, which is com- 
monly adduced as a conclusive authority in favor of the right to inflict 
capital punishment in case of murder. The text is, " Whoso sheddeth man's 
blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Gen. ix. 6. 

Assuming that the original Hebrew was written by the inspiration of 
God, docs tliis text really afford us any test of truth ? Not unless Ave are 
sure of two things : first, that our translation of the Hebrew is correct ; and, 
second, that our interpretation of the meaning of the text as translated is 
correct. But we are sure only of this, that we are hopelessly in doubt upon 
both these points ; or rather, we might say with truth, that we have good 
reason to believe that our common translation and interpretation are both 
i;^ ,., incorrect. 

m^i Some interpreters say that the text should read, " Whatsoever sheddeth 
"^*^. man's blood," &c. Calvin declares it to be a forced construction which trans- 



the Rev. Dr. Cheever, of New York, we believe, who, from the 
command, " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," draws 
a conclusive argument in favor of capital punishment. From 
the law of love, he defends the law of vengeance ! Bishop 
Meade, from the text " All things whatsoever ye would that 

lates tlie Hebrew word by the expression •' by man." Catholic and other 
translators reject " by man " altogether. Others declare there is as much 
reason for saj'ing " will" as " shall be shed." Others declare that the text 
only forbids shedding the blood of man for food. Who can be sure which of 
these translations is correct ? No one. But, unless we are sure of this, we 
are wholly at a loss, whether (1) the text relates to man at all, or only to 
beasts and things; (2) whether it authorizes "man" to shed the blood of 
the man-slayer ; (3) whether the text is not simply a prediction that the 
violent will meet a violent death ; or (4) whether the command is not merely 
aimed against cannibalism. To say that such a text affords us any test of 
truth is to pervert language. 

But, if we admit that our common version is a correct translation of the 
Hebrew, we are no better off. " Whoso sheddeth man's blood," &c. This 
includes not only the murderer, but the innocent child who accidentally 
kills his playmate, and the maniac who in his fury sheds blood. Accidental 
killing, of any and every kind, is punished as severely as deliberate, cold- 
blooded murder ! Not only this, but the executioner, by whom the man- 
killer is put to death, also sheds blood ; and, according to the terms of the 
text, he also must be put to death ; and so on, until the human race is 
exterminated ! " By man shall his blood be shed." The command, if it be 
one, is not given to governments, for none were then in existence, but to 
individuals. The avenger of blood is, then, justified under this text in kill- 
ing his victim. Any man may do it. No exclusively governmental right 
to inflict capital punishment can possibly be extorted from this text. " Shall 
be shed." But this word " shall " does not necessarily imply command. 
" The wicked shall do wickedly," says David. Does this amount to a com- 
mand to the wicked to sin? The third verse in the same chapter, from 
which our text is taken, reads, " Every moving thing that livoth shall be 
meat for you." Can this be construed into a literal command to us to eat 
every thing that moves ? Ought we, then, to interpret " shall " in our text 
as implying a command ? Did not Moses shed the blood of the Egyptian ? 
Was his blood shed ? Was not David to all intents a miurderer ? Was not 
his sin forgiven ? — Where in the text do we find the power to pardon ? 
Who is ready to say, that pardon should in no case be granted to one who 
had killed another ? 

We might go on almost indefinitely, showing the doubts that reasonably 
exist as to the proper interpretation of this text. What test of truth, then, 
can it possibly afford us ? We are sure of nothing, but that we are enveloped 
in doubts ; and literally knoio nothing as to what part, if any, of it is the 
word of God, or what it teaches. 



8 

men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them," teaches 
the slaves that God requires them to labor for their owners 
faithfully and honestly, and to be as careful of their masters' 
property as their own ! How, think you, would Mr. Scervant 
Jones, of Virginia, interpret texts of Scripture ? You will 
remember that, a few months since, in the " Religious 
Herald," published in Richmond, Virginia, he advertised for 
sale his farm and house and lot, and " also about forty ser- 
vants, mostly young and likely, and rapidly increasing in 
number and value," in order to be able (so the advertisement 
reads) " to spend the balance of my life as a missionary, if 
the Lord permit " ! Now, as Protestants, we all admit that 
there is no existing authority capable of telling us with cer- 
tainty which of these conflicting interpretations of Scripture 
is the true one. The denial of all such authority forms the 
very foundation-stone of Protestantism. My interpretation 
is as good an authority as Bishop Meade's, and yours is as 
good as his or mine, and neither is any authority at all. 
How, then, as Protestants, can we find the highest test of 
moral truth in texts of Scripture ? It Avill be time enough to 
refute the claim of the Catholics for the infallibility of their 
church or the pope, in the exposition of Scripture, when they 
can infallibly prove such infallibility. But, so long as their 
chain of argument must, of necessity, at the very best be 
only jjrobabljj sound, the infallibility based on such argu- 
ment can be at best only a probable infallibility, or no 
infallibility at all. How, then, as Catholics, can we find the 
highest test of moral truth in texts of Scripture ? 

What, then, is the highest test of moral truth ? It is the 
consciousness of each man's soul. Each man's soul is a law 
to himself. We are all conscious that it would be wrong 
for any one to enslave us, or to return tis to slavery. 
Nobody questions it. Who more than the slaveholders are 
more constantly harping upon infringements of their liberty ? 
Take the worst sugar-planter in Louisiana or Cuba, one of 
those creatures (I cannot degrade the word 7nan so to include 
him) who considers it better economy to work up his stock 
of slaves once in seven years, and buy new ones to replace 



the dead * and ask him whether it is right for any one to 
hold him in slavery, and who can doubt that his answer would 
be an indignant No? Think you, that Moses Stuart would 
say it was right for any one to send him back to slavery, even 
to a Christian master ? No : he would declare it to be a 
monstrous wrong, even though that learned expounder of the 
Bible-supports of slavery should have satisfied himself, that 
Jesus Christ,! if now on earth, would be willing, in order to 
send him back to his master, to act as United States Com- 
missioner, and St. Paul as United States Marshal. It 
would require something more than texts of Scripture to 
satisfy him that it was right in the sight of God for any one. 
to send him back to slavery. No: every one of us, — the 
worst of slaveholders, and their still worse Northern apolo- 
gists, all admit their consciousness of this truth, all unhesi- 
tatingly affirm, that theij hsive a God-given right to freedom. 

Whence do we derive this consciousness ? Why are we 
sure that ice have a right to be free ? Is it because we hap- 
pen to be rich and influential ? No : because then one richer 
and more influential might rightly enslave us. Is it because 
we are strong and powerful ? No : because then one stronger 
and more powerful might rightly enslave us. Is it because 
we are wise and good ? No : because then a wiser and better 



* For the evidence of this fact, see " Slavery as It Is," pp. 38—40. 

t Some persons have objected to this use of the name of Jesus, as want- 
ing in reverence for his character ; and I would say in reply, that, if it can 
be°permitted to a clergyman, without the charge of irreverence, to declare 
that Christ, if now on earth, would under certain circumstances become a 
slaveholder (as Rev. Dr. Taylor, of Yale College, is said to instruct candi- 
dates for the ministry, — " The Church as It Is," p. 95), it ought also to be 
permitted to me, without the charge of irreverence, to suppose the case of 
his returning fugitives to their masters, in order to open the eyes of many 
to the inconsistency between that act and the whole life and teachings of 
Christ. I wish the point to be distinctly brought home to each man's soul, 

that, if it is i;ight for C D , it would be also right for Christ, if now 

on earth, to act as United States Marshal ; and, if we cannot conceive of 
Christ thus aiding in returning a fugitive, we ought to be equally shocked 

at C D for doing the same thing. And yet how few of those who 

support C D would not be shocked at the idea of Christ's being will- 
ing to act in his place ! g 



might rightly enslave us. Is it because we have Avhite 
complexions and straight hair ? No : because then one with 
whiter complexion and straighter hair might rightly enslave 
us. And there are slaves at the South with as clear, white 
complexions, blue eyes, and straight hair, as any of us can 
boast. Is it because we happen to be descended from Saxon 
ancestors ? No : our consciousness of right to freedom does 
not depend on our ability elaborately to trace our pedigree 
to individuals of a race, who were themselves slaves for cen- 
turies,* and some of whose descendants are at this day held 
in slavery in the Southern States. Why, then, are we sure 
that it is wrong for any one to enslave us ? It is not 
because of the accident of our social position, in being rich 
or poor ; it is not because of the accident of our physical 
condition, in that we are strong or weak ; it is not because 
of the accident of our mental condition, in that we are wiser 
than our fellows ; \it is not because of the accidents of birth, 
or the color of our complexion, or the formation of our hair, or 
any other of the accidents of human nature ; but Ave are sure 
that it is wrong for any one to enslave us, simply and solely 
because we are men, and as such have a God-given right to 
freedom. But, if we are thus sure that it is wrong for any one 
to enslave us, simply because we are men, then we are also 
sure that it is wrong for us to enslave others, simply because 
they are men. For the same reason we are sure that it 
is wrong for any one, under any circumstances, to hold us 
in slavery, we are also sure that it is wrong for us, under any 
circumstances, to hold in slavery the poorest, weakest, most 
degraded African that lives ; for he, too, is a man, created in 
the image of God. 

But we are also sure, from the actual workings of slavery, 
that this consciousness is correct. Every man is endowed 
by nature with a mind, soul, and affections capable of im- 
provement ; which, therefore, it is his duty to improve ; and 
which, accordingly, he has a natural right to improve, to 
the utmost possible extent ; andj^^unnecessary or wanton 
infringement of this right is a ^Hk- ^^^ ^'^e system of 
* Villein slavery existed in '^^Kid for centuries. 



11 

slavery as administered in the Southern States, in the great 
majority of cases, intentionaUy darkens the minds, deadens 
the souls, and brutalizes the affections, of its victims. Either 
law, or a custom as universal and remorseless as the law, 
denies to the slaves all possibility of menial culture, by de- 
priving them of the privilege of learning to read and write. 
They are not permitted to acquire the very first rudiments of 
knowledge ! And, of the millions of slaves who have been 
brought up in this Christian land, according to the testimony 
of the Rev. Dr. Chas. C. Jones, of Georgia (who has unques- 
tionably devoted more time than any other person to investi- 
gating the mental and moral condition of the slaves, and has 
more information on the subject than any other person), only 
" an almost inconceivable fraction " can read ! In his opinion, 
and that of several religious bodies in the South, the moral 
condition of the slaves is equally degraded. He says that 
" they are the most degraded people of any in the United 
Slates." He calls them " a nation of heathen in our very 
midst." True it is, that, for some years past, many slaves 
have had the gospel preached to them ; not, however, as the- 
poor and degraded had it preached to them eighteen hun- 
dred years ago, but the Christian teacher of to-day aims to 
make the slaves more faithful and obedient as slaves, and 
consequently more valuable as vendible commodities ! As 
if the being who said, " A new commandment I give unto 
you, that ye love one another," would, if now on the earth, 
also say, " Ye slaves, work faithfully and diligently for your 
masters, and never run away, if ye would avoid everlasting 
torments in hell" ! * 

Where, if not around one's home, do all the best affections 
cluster ? 

There's nae hame like tlie hame o' youth, 

Nae ither spot sae fair ; 
Nae ither faces look sae kind 

As the smilm' faces there. 

But the slave has no home that is sacred from the feet of 

* This is the quality o'' the religious instruction imparted to slaves by 
Bishops Meade, Ives, Freeman ; by Dr. Jones, and other eminent 

Southern clergymen. Slavery and the Constitution," chap. v. 



12 

the spoiler. No joys can cluster around Jiis hearthstone. 
Where, if not in the tender relations of father and mother, 
brother and sister, parent and child, are all the best and 
purest affections of our nature cherished and expanded ? 
But, in the estimation of law and common practice, the slave 
has no family, any more than the horse or the cow ! Mar- 
riage is denied to the slaves. They are compelled to live in 
a state of concubinage. The very corner-stone of the family 
relation, and therefore of home, is ruthlessly cut away. At 
any time, at the mere caprice of an owner or creditor, the 
father or mother, the brother or sister, may be put upon 
the auction-block, and sold to the highest bidder ! Henry 
Brown, in order to be able to live with his wife at all, Avas 
obliged to hire her of her owner, who happened to be a 
Methodist minister ; and, Avhen that minister Avished to raise 
some money, he sold BroAvn's Avife and children before his 
very face, although he professed to be a minister of Him Avho 
preached deliverance to the captive, — one of those so-called 
holy men Avho are called of God, and solemnly set apart to 
preach to all men the gospel of love ! And how are they 
sold ? Why, Ave have before us an advertisement for sale of 
a young girl, about eighteen years of age, honest, industrious, 
a good cook, fine Avasher and ironer, and a good seamstress ; 
and immediately above it is the notice of a " B/ouded colt at 
auction : a thorough-bred colt, two years old the coming 
spring, got by Farmer, dam by Lafayette." In another, in 
the same sentence, are offered for sale " one stalhon. Red 
Buck, and one negro boy." In another, a man offers for sale 
about fifty " very valuable young negroes, consisting of men 
and Avomen, boys, girls, and children ; " and immediately, in 
the very next sentence, he offers his " entire stock of blood- 
horses " ! Who can doubt that the holiest, purest, and best 
affections of the slaves are, in the great majority of cases, as 
much disregarded as their mental and moral improvement ? 

Does any one say, that there are many slaveholders Avho, 
disregarding the law, give their slaves mental and moral 
instruction, and protect their family relations as far as they 
possibly can be under the circumstances ? True, it is cause 



13 

for rejoicing, that there are thousands of masters Avho treat 
their slaves in this manner ; but, nevertheless, all slaveholding 
is wrong. Two things should be constantly borne in mind : 
First, No man can make me, or any other person, a slave- 
holder, without or against my consent. There is not, and 
cannot by any possibility be, an instance of a man who is 
obliged to receive a gift of slaves unless lie chooses, or of 
one who is obliged to hold slaves longer than he wills so to 
do. All slaveholding is unnecessary : none is involuntary. 
Second, A slave, no matter what his condition, is still an item 
of property merely, and as such liable to all the incidents of 
property. So long as the owner's wealth lasts, the condition 
of his slaves may be tolerably secure ; but, as soon as his 
wealth fails, they become assets for the payment of his debts, 
and must be sold to satisfy the claims of his creditors. What 
chance is there that all the purchasers will be kind-hearted, 
all above want, and ready like him to disobey the law in 
order to retain their humanity ? Not one chance in a thou- 
sand ! What in such case is to prevent those happy slaves 
from becoming as degraded as the mass of slaves around 
them ? Nothing. What is to become of the mental and 
moral condition of his slaves, when the kind-hearted owner 
dies ? He may perhaps leave a will, bequeathing them on 
condition that they shall continue to be taught to read and 
write, and that their marriages and family relations shall be 
sacredly protected ; in other words, on condition that the lega- 
tees shall continue breaking the law as he has done. The 
law will simply declare all such conditions utterly void, and 
the legatees Avill own the slaves unfettered by any conditions. 
In such case, also, unless all the legatees are above want, 
and ready to break the law for the sake of the souls of their 
fellows, hopeless degradation cannot fail soon to be the lot 
of these happy slaves. If the owner dies intestate, and there 
is a widow, she must have her dower assigned in these 
slaves, and the residue must be equally divided among the 
heirs-at-law, — not divided by families, but the husband may 
be separated for ever from his wife, the brother from his 
sister, or the mother from her darling child. The only object 



u 

the law has in view is, that each heir may have his share of 
the money-value of the slaves. It would be almost a miracle 
if all the heirs should be above want, and ready and willing, 
for the sake of securing the mental and moral elevation of 
their slaves, to disregard all the laws aimed against that 
elevation. And yet, unless all were thus wealthy and law- 
defying, and continued so to be, the slaves would of neces- 
sity soon become as degraded as their fellows. 

As no one has the right utmecessarily to impede in the 
least our spiritual or mental culture, much less unnecessarily 
to expose us almost certainly to hopeless degradation ; so we 
do wrong, by holding our fellows in slavery, to render almost 
inevitable the death of their souls. We can see, therefore, 
from the actual workings of slavery, how correct is our 
consciousness that slaveholding is always wrong : slave- 
holding is always Avrong, because it either darkens the minds, 
deadens the souls, and brutalizes the affections, of its victims ; 
or else, Avithout any necessity, renders such moral death 
almost inevitable. 

Such are some of the reasons why Ave have an unshaken 
conviction that our principle is right. 

We are also sure that our method of promulgating our 
principle is the best, the only correct method. 

What is our method ? 

We do not endeavor to organize a political party, because 
we cannot take any executive, judicial, or legislative office, 
either state or national, without being obliged to swear to 
support the Constitution of the United States, Avhich is an 
oath to give slavery material support. It is wrong to swear 
to support slavery to-day, even though we hope thereby 
to be able to abolish it to-morrow. It is wrong to swear to 
support a wrong, if we mean to keep the oath ; and to our 
Avrong is added perjury, if we mean not to keep it. 

We do not organize a party, because politics is a game of 
expediency and compromise, even in moral questions ; and 
our motto is, " Without compromise." Besides, by acting 
politically, we place ourselves, apparently at least, in an 
interested position. The people lose confidence in the 



15 

purity and disinterestedness of our motives, if we propose 
ourselves as candidates for office. We prefer to belong to no 
party, but to appeal to men of all parties, to act up to the 
highest anti-slavery truth they can appreciate.* 

We do not organize an anti-slavery church ; not because 
such an organization may not do very good service to the 
cause, but because churches, as at present organized, can 
be formed only by the adoption of some creed, or other state- 
ment of religious belief. The formation of a church involves 
agreement among its members on many points; whilst, as 
anti-slavery men and women, we agree only in one, namely, 
that slaveholding is always wrong ; and, being so, immediate 
emancipation is the duty of the master, and the right of the 
slave. Our object is the spreading of this truth, and this 
only ; not the truths concerning the trinity or unity of God, 
the atonement, and other doctrines of the church, though 
more or less important in themselves. On our platform, all 
anti-slavery men are welcome, no matter what is their reli- 
gious belief. In behalf of freedom, we will work with the 
Jew or Deist, as amicably as with the Christian. With us 
the Catholic or Churchman finds no more favor than the 
Unitarian, unless by his works he shows a more lively faith. 

We do not incite the slave to rebel; though, according to 
the creed of our revolutionary fathers, resistance to tyrants is 
obedience to God ; because no moral question can be settled 
by force. 

We do not, as an association, engage in "running off" 
slaves. Not that such an act is not perfectly right, and 
strictly in accordance with the golden rule, — not that we 
do not honor the heroic Wm. L. Chaplin, who has been 
willing to risk a prison for the sake of aiding the oppressed, — 
no ; but because such method of proceeding is extremely 
partial and limited in its operation, and because it cannot 
tend to produce immediate emancipation so efficiently as 
other means. 

We do not seek to buy up the slaves, — some of us upon 

* This does not prevent me from voting for persons who will refuse to 
take the oath to support the Constitution. 



16 

priuciple, as being a recognition of the right of the masters, 
but most of us because it would be impossible in this way to 
attain our object ; and because for every slave we buy we 
strengthen the hands of the slaveholder, and give him an 
additional stimulus to uphold slavery. But our method is to 
adopt every just and feasible way of regenerating pubUc 
sentiment on the subject of slavery. We form anti-slavery 
societies, sustain anti-slavery presses : we pubhsh and scatter 
broadcast over the land documents showing the wrongs of 
slavery ; we hold conventions, and public meetings of various 
kinds ; and, in all these and similar ways, we endeavor to 
gain the ear and attention of the people, and to convince 
them that slaveholding is always wrong ; and that, therefore, 
immediate emancipation is the right of the slave, and duty 
of the master. As our principle is based upon our common 
manhood, we appeal to men, not as partisans or sectarians, 
but simply as men, who are conscious that it is wrong for 
any one to enslave them. 

Doubtless many will bring up the oft-repeated objection, — 
This is to do nothing ; all this moral agitation can effect 
nothing unless somebody votes, unless somebody enacts a law 
emancipating the slaves. Let us look at this a moment ; for 
no objection is brought forward more frequently, more 
triumphantly, — none which at first glance looks more valid, 
and none which, notwithstanding, is really weaker and more 
unsubstantial. 

"What is it that supports slavery ? The law, you say. Very 
well ; but who enacts the law ? The Legislature I "What de- 
termines the character of the Legislature ? The votes of 
the people I And what determines the votes of the people ? 
Their ideas I It is the ideas of the people ; the pubhc sentiment 
of the people, then, and not its laws, which supports slavery. 
Theologians tell us that the world existed ideally in the mind 
of God before the creation, and that it was created as it was, 
necessarily, because of the pre-existing idea. As it was with 
the creation of the world, so it has always been with the 
works of man. They all necessarily presuppose certain idea^. 
The constitutions, laws, customs, parties, sects, of any people, 



17 

exist solely and necessarily because certain ideas exist in the 
minds of that people. It was the French writers, — those 
who changed the thoughts of the nation, — and not a finan- 
cial difficulty, which brought on the French Revolution. 

Now, which shall we do first ? Shall we seek to change 
the law by political action, or shall we endeavor to alter the 
ideas of the public by ceaseless moral agitation ? Ideas are 
the cause ; laws, the effect. Shall we endeavor to operate 
first on the effect or the cause ? Evidently the latter. It is 
impossible to change any effect without first changing the 
cause. A law which is supported by public sentiment, or 
the ideas of a nation, cannot be repealed. So long as slavery 
is supported by the public sentiment of this nation, we can- 
not repeal the laws supporting it. If we could go through 
the form of a repeal, it would be disregarded. But a law 
which is not supported by public sentiment is dead, though 
living on the statute-book. It is of little or no use to go 
through the form of repealing it. What but public senti- 
ment in Massachusetts effectually repealed the fugitive slave 
law of 1793 ? What was it that abolished villein slavery in 
England ? The repeal of the law of villeinage ? No : that 
law exists to this day as much the law of England as ever ; 
but public sentiment abolished the law centuries ago. We 
cannot legally abolish slavery in this country, or repeal the 
legal supports of slavery contained in the national Constitu- 
tion, until we have changed the moral sentiment of the 
nation on these questions; and, as soon as we have done 
this, it will be of little or no use to go through the form of 
abolishing slavery, or any of its supports, for they will be 
already abolished. What we want is the will, not the power, 
to abolish slavery. 

Such are some of the reasons why we are sure that our 
method of preaching anti-slavery truth is the best and only 
correct one. 

But, if our principle is right, and our mode of action right 

also, the result — success — must be certain. Why, then, 

should we not have a resolute determination to persevere in 

our good work, until success shall crown our efforts ? Do 

3 



18 

you say that the struggle is wearisome ? True it is so. 
Who, at times, has not felt discouraged at the distant pros- 
pect ? How many earnest men and women have stopped 
by the way ! And let him, who feels most assured that his 
courage and resolution will hold out to the last, take heed 
lest he fall ! 

But what good thing has ever been or can be attained 
without struggle, — often desperate, always a manful, hope- 
ful struggle ? Nothing worth having in physical, mental, 
or moral life can be obtained without effort. What is it that 
strengthens the muscles, and expands the chest ? Is it float- 
ing lazily with the current, or rowing against wind and tide ? 
What is it that enlarges and strengthens the mind ? Is it 
going over and over the same mental proposition ? No : 
the mind has already reached that level. We may go over and 
over again for ever the same demonstration in Euclid, and the 
mind will not be strengthened or advanced thereby. What 
is it that purifies, ennobles, and strengthens the soul ? Is it 
the constant repetition or consideration of the same truth 
which our soul already receives ? No : our soul has already 
reached the moral level necessary to enable it to receive that 
truth ; and it cannot advance at all, merely by recognizing 
it again and again. But present me with a truth, which at 
first I combat with my whole heart and soul and strength 
as error, but which finally in its power overcomes me, and 
compels me to receive it, — this it is which ennobles and 
strengthens the soul ; this it is which makes a man godlike, 
erect, and tall. The law of all life is difficulty, struggle, 
progress. And the converse is equally true, — ease, quiet, 
decay, death. 

If we would benefit ourselves, we must struggle earnestly 
for others. The changing the opinion of a nation upon any 
question is a great, and upon the question of slavery it is an 
appallingly great task ; but, in its accomplishment, is the only 
salvation of the slave. Three millions of our brothers are 
calhng to us for help. And shall we hesitate or falter in the 
course that God has set before us, merely because we feel 
sure that our struggle will be most arduous, — that we shall 



19 

meet with political death ; the estrangement of many dear 
friends ; the chilling coolness of some, and the open enmity 
of others ; detraction, hatred, and abuse ? No : let us follow 
Milton's example, and steer right onward, nor bate a jot of 
heart or hope. If we lose the whole world, we shall gain 
our own souls. 

Never give up ! There are chances and changes 

Helping the hopeful a hundred to one ; 
And, through the chaos, high Wisdom arranges 

Always success, if we only hope on. 

A regard for the slave demands of us struggle, — earnest, 
hopeful, manful. A regard for our own souls demands of 
us, that we should " labor up the hill of heavenly truth." 



^4 



br 








• AY 



V^' 






%^'W!^\o'> ^^^"!?^\/ %*^''J> *^*X. 










5* *^W^A.* '^ '^*» ♦' 




//is^^\ ^''^;^-.X /<*.^:-\ ^'^;^ 









vv 











.0* •' 



*h\^ 












57 



""S* vV (l\\ Sk //Ji «> tf> 












0^ 









•v* ^^. ' • • • ' ■ 










«>. ^^. <^ 

















VV 






vv 




/% '.^^•' **"'** '-^p-* /"\ -^<^. 



Ik 







.*'% 








V J'\ 




/Vi-:i^-\ <.°*.iis^.% /.c^.\ co 










^•.^%' 



.*• 



■^"'.\.«^-;"" 



